3 ms·
Whereas inequality is traditionally easy to measure, people are more interested in equalizing forces. I think that we are less concerned about inequality if the
by jhanschoo 9y ago
Whereas inequality is traditionally easy to measure, people are more interested in equalizing forces. I think that we are less concerned about inequality if there is an assurance that our lives should regress to a comfortable mean given that we invest reasonable time in socially-useful work.
- dwaltrip 9y agoHow could such a thing happen? How do we prevent highly skilled individuals from producing great value for their societies and then receiving the benefits from that? 100% tax rate? That sounds incredibly draconian. I'm not arguing that our current situation is ideal, or that we can't do a lot more to provide greater opportunity for all and raise the floor for everyone. But complete "equality of outcome" seems to go against all of my understanding of the dynamics through which the universe actually unfolds over time. I can only imagine it as a very unstable state that is held in place through immense effort and force.
- jhanschoo 9y agoI think I have miscommunicated. I'm saying that an ideal society should be one where mishaps and bad deeds are assured to result only in a temporary poor quality of life, and that good deeds result only in a temporary good quality of life. That is, there is negative feedback, or homeostasis. Poorly-regulated capitalism doesn't provide that. Capital begets capital as capitalists become more able to invest in high-risk high-reward projects, leading to a positive feedback loop that is an anti-equalizing force.